Sheriffs vs. Presidents

Sheriffs refuse to enforce gun control laws

It seems that more than 400 county sheriffs in the U.S. are declining to enforce their respective states’ new gun control legislation. Does anyone have a problem with that?

If you do, then do you have any problem with the President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States (and the various and sundry federal law enforcement officers that report to them) declining to enforce certain laws in the United States, like immigration laws or assorted portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

Essentially, there is no difference. If it is fine for the President to order federal agents and others charged with enforcing federal statutes to use their “prosecutorial discretion” and not deport people for violation of U.S. immigration laws or not to impose statutory punishments for not abiding by the dictates and deadlines of the PPACA (better known as Obamacare), then it would seem to me that it should just as appropriate for the the elected local sheriff to declare that whatever the latest gun control legislation calls for will not be enforce … or be subject to priority enforcement.

Are not the Sheriffs following the example of our President?

Now, I understand not prioritizing enforcement of some statutes because of the vagueness of the law, or its widespread disregard. Heck, speed limits are not strictly enforced in the United States (except in speed traps) and that is because 90 percent of the drivers in the US normally exceed the posted limit by at least 5 to 10 miles per hour all the time. Heck, I can even understand not enforcing a law if you know the law is unconstitutional.

However, I do have problems granting waivers for laws because they are inconvenient or because they might cause political problems for the law enforcement people.

So, those of you who have a problem with the stand being taken by the sheriffs, I sure hope you are consistent and have equally vehement objections to the failures, or refusals, or downright ignoring the law of the Obama Administration.

Big OOPSIE!

Jihadiis behead wrong guy

It seems the Al Qaeda folks fighting in Syria against the Assad Regime beheaded what they thought was a member of a rival group that was in league with the government. They posted the grisly head on the internet.

OOPS!

It seems it was the head of the leader of one of their allies in the fight. Bad show, guys.

But, then taking a page from the book of the American president, President Barack Obama, they apologized and said they were sorry. It was all a mistake and not to hold it against them.

HMMMMM …

I guess if it works for President Obama with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act fiasco, then it should work for some Middle Eastern terrorists … who at least are fighting for the right cause (I think, but I haven’t checked the scorecard or the program to see who I am supposed to be rooting for here – it is awfully confusing trying to keep the players straight).

So what if it isn’t fair, or even legal for that matter, if I say I am sorry then all is OK and nobody needs to care.

You see, following the rules isn’t necessary, especially if it means trying to apply that archaic concept called the “rule of law.” Nah, it is better just to lop off people’s heads and then try to figure out what they did … you know, sort of like: Kill them all and let God sort it out.

And then if the rules you impose have all sorts of unintended consequences, especially to your allies (or people you want to be your allies), you can suspend the rules for them and blame it on someone else.

For the record: It is my humble opinion is that if we are going to have rules/laws, then it obligation of those of us covered by them to make a good faith effort to at least try to abide by them until or unless the law is changed and/or repealed. And that those who are charged with enforcing the rules do so with diligence and care that it is their responsibility to do it fairly and equitably and without arbitrary selective enforcement.

Lopping off people’s heads just because you think they are bad guys is not really permitted. You might shoot them, if  you have reason to believe that they are the enemy, but you better be ready to defend that act to the disinterested judges who are sitting on the sidelines just waiting to pounce.

(SO) Oh, and if you disagree with any of the above, your are a racist bigot xenophobe who is blinded by your ideological hatred of someone different and guilty of crimes not committed in your name by generations preceding you. (SO)

 

* (SO) alternately means Sarcasm ON or Sarcasm OFF, depending on its position in relation to the comment so bracketed. Just being politic there and, hence, you have been advised of your rights.